runrunit_create_external_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the plain-text requirement (no Markdown) and external visibility, which are meaningful behavioral constraints. It does not mention response format, permission requirements, or failure behavior for tasks without a guest channel, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, with purpose and usage front-loaded. Grammar is awkward ('For create a comment', 'use only text simple') and 'external/guest'/'external clients' is slightly redundant, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, channel scope, and text formatting constraint. It doesn't explain what happens if the task lacks a guest channel, but this is a relatively minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions are 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds the concrete constraint that text must be simple plain text without Markdown and clarifies that the comment targets the guest channel, going slightly beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the verb 'create', resource 'comment', and scope 'external/guest channel' explicitly. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling runrunit_create_comment by channel type, so an agent can tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: comments shared with external clients (channel_name: guest). It doesn't explicitly name runrunit_create_comment as the alternative for internal comments, but the channel qualifier makes the applicable context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.